get_fiat_withdrawals

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explains pagination (offset, limit) and optional date filtering but lacks details on output format, sorting order, rate limits, or side effects. Since the tool is a read operation, it is likely non-destructive, but the description does not explicitly confirm this.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. No superfluous text. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, it is acceptable not to describe the output. However, the description does not clarify when to use this listing tool versus the singular 'get_fiat_withdrawal' sibling. The three optional parameters are well-covered, but the context of batch operations versus single retrieval is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so adequately: offset as pagination offset, limit with a max of 1000, from_date with a date format (YYYY-MM-DD). This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides type and default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get fiat (AED) withdrawal history,' identifying the verb (get), resource (fiat withdrawal history), and currency (AED). The plural form distinguishes it from the singular sibling 'get_fiat_withdrawal,' but the description does not explicitly differentiate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_fiat_withdrawal for a single withdrawal, cancel_fiat_withdrawal for cancellation). It mentions filtering by date but not prerequisites or when to avoid usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.